You are currently viewing PlanetSide Universe as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features.
By joining our web site you will have access to post topics in our public forums, communicate privately with other members via PM, request TeamSpeak access and more! Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, join the forums today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

I know what you mean Basti. It's a complicated issue. A lot of what small outfits did in PS1 was before a zerg moved in - resecuring continent opening attempts. They got so good at it that empires had to start forming up raids in Sanctuary in order to break in. Having an intercontinental lattice will create those opportunities and may develop a similar meta.

The Zerg also predictably stayed in one lane on the Lattice most of the time and didn't shift quickly, so even on a poplocked continent you could make an impact by going after the non-zergy bases and get a good smaller fight because the zerg couldn't instantly relocate to deal with the threat. Your small fight stayed small for longer. And cloaked AMS made it not as easy to locate the spawn. There's a lot of reasons why the smaller outfits were viable and fun, and I have keen insight into what made it successful.

We're getting there. You probably won't see a big patch where that's the subject of the update, but it'll be something that gets chiseled at over the weeks and months. I think it is getting slowly better with every update.

I know what you mean Basti. It's a complicated issue. A lot of what small outfits did in PS1 was before a zerg moved in - resecuring continent opening attempts. They got so good at it that empires had to start forming up raids in Sanctuary in order to break in. Having an intercontinental lattice will create those opportunities and may develop a similar meta.

The Zerg also predictably stayed in one lane on the Lattice most of the time and didn't shift quickly, so even on a poplocked continent you could make an impact by going after the non-zergy bases and get a good smaller fight because the zerg couldn't instantly relocate to deal with the threat. Your small fight stayed small for longer. And cloaked AMS made it not as easy to locate the spawn. There's a lot of reasons why the smaller outfits were viable and fun, and I have keen insight into what made it successful.

We're getting there. You probably won't see a big patch where that's the subject of the update, but it'll be something that gets chiseled at over the weeks and months. I think it is getting slowly better with every update.

Why was the ability to blow gens without a link removed? One of our spec ops units specializes in base preparation and this was part of their protocol. If it was removed because of players who just ran around and blew gens for points, then remove the point reward.

Why was the ability to blow gens without a link removed? One of our spec ops units specializes in base preparation and this was part of their protocol. If it was removed because of players who just ran around and blew gens for points, then remove the point reward.

It's been suggested before that at 50% the lattice links would be semi-connected allowing players to leave the base and move on toward other objectives. (Losing the objective though would immediately stop any captures on objectives that used that link). This preserves long hack-times and promotes galaxy based take backs and lets the zerg spread out. That said it also requires getting rid of the horrible system where you lose XP for taking a step outside of an objective. (That is you earn XP while fighting in the area and if the capture goes through you get it no matter where you are. At the same time though XP should increase as the capture gets closer promoting defense and offense during the last seconds. Assuming spawn kills are mitigated. Complex problem).

It's been suggested before that at 50% the lattice links would be semi-connected allowing players to leave the base and move on toward other further objectives. (Losing the objective though would immediately stop any captures). This preserved long hack-times and promotes galaxy based take backs and lets the zerg spread out. That said it also requires getting rid of the horrible system where you lose XP for taking a step outside of an objective. (That is you earn XP while fighting in the area and if the capture goes through you get it no matter where you are).

This only applies to "the next territory". Gens should be opened up across the cont again. Just remove the XP award for destruction. Same for terminals. Players will destroy gens and terms if they need to, not because it gives XP.

Why was the ability to blow gens without a link removed? One of our spec ops units specializes in base preparation and this was part of their protocol. If it was removed because of players who just ran around and blew gens for points, then remove the point reward.

I feel like there might've been other reasons it was removed. If points was the only reason then SOE would've done exactly what you said.

There's little reason (certainly not for getting score - and that's the only motivation in the game) to ever defend a base behind the lines. Prepping bases essentially involves sending some infiltrators into unguarded places, pressing E... with the only resistance you're like to ever find is a few unaware people milling around and a random mine or two.

You want to be really pro? Trigger the gens in unison. Yay!

I'm all for back-hacking, base prepping, whatever... but for such a huge impact on the base's defense - there just needs to be more to it. There needs to be some skill involved. There needs to be some danger.

Put it back in like it is now, and it's just a mechanic that would be fun for a few... and annoying for most.

This only applies to "the next territory". Gens should be opened up across the cont again. Just remove the XP award for destruction. Same for terminals. Players will destroy gens and terms if they need to, not because it gives XP.

But how would the scrubs get xp....

They give xp for everything, it really is stupid. You can't tactically use gens or terminals because littlejimmy has to make it go boom for xp yo.

Malorn i'm pleased to hear that the old game mechanics that provided meta game have not been forgotten, i live in hope they will come back. Gets tedious fighting within the zerg and getting crushed by much zoes than your platoon has members because every one can pull one.

__________________

Average play time of 2.8hours per day and falling.
Average play time of 2.5hours per day and falling. Need metagame.Average play time of 2.0hours per day and falling. Need metagame / Continents.

They give xp for everything, it really is stupid. You can't tactically use gens or terminals because littlejimmy has to make it go boom for xp yo.

Malorn i'm pleased to hear that the old game mechanics that provided meta game have not been forgotten, i live in hope they will come back. Gets tedious fighting within the zerg and getting crushed by much zoes than your platoon has members because every one can pull one.

unfortunately most of the playerbase will only do something if it generates XP. i mean, when you're a non member with no boost, getting a 1000 cert weapon is a hell of a grind.

unfortunately most of the playerbase will only do something if it generates XP. i mean, when you're a non member with no boost, getting a 1000 cert weapon is a hell of a grind.

F2P model separates playstyles too much. Payers vs non-payers tend to have completely different motivations in a fight. Not always, but the 2 styles differ so much in that payers tend to be more strategic as they have "bought time" and non-payers have to grind grind gring to keep up so this simply feeds the zerg. What can ya do?

Does it? I thought SOE did a pretty good job with the F2P model. Isn't that why there are multiple options to purchase things which allow players to piece-meal or boost-over-time what they want/need to play with? Free-to-Play isn't meant to provide easy access to everything. It's meant to allow players to try the game out and if interested to spend a few dollars here and there. Of course, if you have the time and/or skill to obtain enough in-game certs so you don't need to purchase things with real money then more power to you.

Does it? I thought SOE did a pretty good job with the F2P model. Isn't that why there are multiple options to purchase things which allow players to piece-meal or boost-over-time what they want/need to play with? Free-to-Play isn't meant to provide easy access to everything. It's meant to allow players to try the game out and if interested to spend a few dollars here and there. Of course, if you have the time and/or skill to obtain enough in-game certs so you don't need to purchase things with real money then more power to you.

I completely agree that the model gives options and that there are many of them. The problem is the interaction between these tiers. Their motivation is different when it comes to strategy vs the zerg. Other F2P games have he benefit of the segregation of populations via instancing and grinding on mobs. Here in PS2 the grinding is done with and against other players. Paying players have bought the time of grinding 1000 certs when they purchase weapons. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself. But the grinding players have to choose one or the other. Or grind so much that they can do both. Nothing wrong with doing that either. But mixing the two doesnt always play out well. The strategy of PS1 will be near impossible with some of the population able to achieve it and the majority grinding exp and ruining any strategical mechanisms in the name of exp.

The 2 pops are not parallel to each other like in most other games. They are in direct competition as there is only PvP combat. Which s what makes Planetside Planetside. Im not saying i know a way to fix it. I actually think it cant be fixed.

If I may say, the issue I think most at fault is your logistics model.

I get that you want to make the game accessible to the single player. But by giving that player a multitude of spawn points, you then give a squad, outfit, and empire a multitude of spawn points.

Where PS1 was great was that you could hit a base off the main zerg route, and it required some co-ordination to resecure that base. By base - insert gen, spawn room, cap point, NTU, whatever ... these were all nice sub-mechanics; but the real meat here is that a co-ordinated response was required.

Not so in PS2; where you can easily make your way to pretty much any fight by clicking on a series of spawn points, and respawning as soon as you get there.

Why am I saying this? Because ultimately where you don't need co-ordination, numbers will always win. The WDS will be a numbers game. You can 'fix' the scoring system to adjust for populations, but that just penalises the larger empire for probably having more 'casuals'. As has been said before; really you need to get the game favouring strategy over numbers before scoring it.

Why am I saying this? Because ultimately where you don't need co-ordination, numbers will always win. The WDS will be a numbers game. You can 'fix' the scoring system to adjust for populations, but that just penalises the larger empire for probably having more 'casuals'. As has been said before; really you need to get the game favouring strategy over numbers before scoring it.

Exactly. Just count the number of people in your zerg and call the highest one the "win".

Fewer spawn points have been implemented. Redeploy was reworked so that you drop on the nearest friendly base (you still have to get to your squad then) and beacons are supposed to only have a 20-40m correction, as opposed to the 100m that it is now.

To add my two cents to the discussion. I'd say a lot of the issues with zerging (and the associated needless discussions of terminals and generators) vs strategic teamwork could be, at least to an extend, be fixed by making squad play more important and rewarding.

The "set squad objective" option could be extended, and the squad's primary objective might yield exp rewards or bonusses. This means making generators and terminals options for primary objectives and perhaps making it possible to make it an objective to keep an enemy generator alive. Capturing, Holding, or just hanging around the primary objective to keep it defended might yield exp rewards, while simulataneously providing an exp boost (to incentivise fighting and supporting people around the primary objectives).

Such a system could even be extended allow the squad leader to give a preferred squad set-up, e.g. "I need 2 engineers, a medic and the rest of you in maxes for a max crash" with an experience boost for people fulfilling said roles.

It's not a perfect solution and might well require more of the suggestions above (e.g. removing exp gains from blowing up terminals and generators when they are not set as the squad's objective), but it will create more incentive for people, especially in public squads, to follow orders, even boring ones.

To add my two cents to the discussion. I'd say a lot of the issues with zerging (and the associated needless discussions of terminals and generators) vs strategic teamwork could be, at least to an extend, be fixed by making squad play more important and rewarding.

The "set squad objective" option could be extended, and the squad's primary objective might yield exp rewards or bonusses. This means making generators and terminals options for primary objectives and perhaps making it possible to make it an objective to keep an enemy generator alive. Capturing, Holding, or just hanging around the primary objective to keep it defended might yield exp rewards, while simulataneously providing an exp boost (to incentivise fighting and supporting people around the primary objectives).

Such a system could even be extended allow the squad leader to give a preferred squad set-up, e.g. "I need 2 engineers, a medic and the rest of you in maxes for a max crash" with an experience boost for people fulfilling said roles.

It's not a perfect solution and might well require more of the suggestions above (e.g. removing exp gains from blowing up terminals and generators when they are not set as the squad's objective), but it will create more incentive for people, especially in public squads, to follow orders, even boring ones.